Slashdot Mirror
Against Online Surveillance? You Must Be 'For' Child Porn, Says Legislator
An anonymous reader writes "Following up on yesterday's story about the Canadian government's internet surveillance legislation, one of the bill's proponents is now accusing those who oppose it of standing with child pornographers. Those against the legislation include: Law professor Michael Geist, Open Media, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Council of Canadians and many others. 'Public Safety Minister Vic Toews told a Liberal MP he could either stand with the government or "with the child pornographers" prowling online.' Toews is enjoying his Parliamentary Privilege, which grants him the freedom to say pretty much anything he wants without fear of a slander suit."
Won't someone think of the children?!?!?!!?!
The stuff is so vanishingly rare it should never be used as a justification for anything as sweeping as a government power-grab like this one.
You want the terrorists to win.
Gimme a break.
I hate the "You are in league with the enemy" garbage attack. Why is it a problem for these people when anybody believes in privacy, due process and civil liberties?
Alright, gimmie a second...
"Against warrantless entry of your home? You must be abusing a child!"
"Against public cameras tracking your every move? You must be planning to abduct a child!"
"Against drug prohibition? You must want to give drugs to children!"
"Against warrantless wire-tapping? You must be talking about internet surveillance legislation!"
Wait, that last one needs work.
In that case, fuck the children.
(+1, Disagree)
By that logic if im against mustard im for handgun violence?
No wonder, considering recent censorship on reddit, it seems you can push whatever agenda you want, by branding it anti-CP
Minister Toews should be fine, then, with his office's internet access being logged and stored.
Should be perfectly safe - after all, you only have something to fear if you're doing something wrong, or if the government's records leak.
Right?
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
Just think what heinous acts of child abuse could go on behind those curtains. Perhaps the honourable member would leave his curtains open at all times or stand with those who commit child rape behind them.
Sent to Ralph Goodale (my MP), Stephen Harper (PM of Canada), and Vic Toews (the jackboot who insultingly claims I support child pornography because I won't kiss his ass):
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Looks like Canada is a lost cause now too. Any rocket scientists out there want to build a shuttle for those of us who like our rights? I think our chances of entering a wormhole and coming out in Narnia are better than the chance that government actually asks for permission from this point on.
Anyone who says something like that is probably diddling children in his spare time.
that he's having to hide behind Parliamentary Privilege?
Works both ways, does it not?
You're in favor of putting kids in ready access of tens of thousands of pedophiles since:
1) We know that predators seek places where their prey goes.
2) There have been thousands of cases in the last few years of public school teachers in the US going to jail for having sex with minors.
3) Whatever the cops can find is usually only the tip of the iceberg.
So clearly, since you support ripping kids out of the loving arms of their parents and putting them in public schools, you MUST be in favor of putting them at risk for actual molestation by a pedophile.
Whenever I see these peope constantly banging the drums of how we have to continually make worse laws about controlling the Internet, one thing comes to my mind:
Why do these government officials keep harping on it? Ministers like Ted Haggard attack gays constantly, and turn out to be gay themselves. Me thinks the government officials might be producing or consuming this material. Otherwise, why, might I ask, are you harping on it so much?
They lean pretty far left up there. Surely he must have had coffee with a communist or two. Stop him at customs and interrogate him the next time he enters the US.
(noted with sarcasm and reference to the HUAC. If you don't know what HUAC stands for, don't moderate).
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Slander is not protected by the freedom of speech, but sadly it is with "Parliamentary privilege"
Freedom of speech DOES NOT include slander and libel and all kinds of other speech that his Privilege extends him.
Good-bye
How people fail to see the double standard these politicians hold is beyond me.
In Capitalist US, the commerce controls the Government.
Torn between my deep love of child porn and my long-held belief that online surveillance is also pretty hot.
The proposed bill is like the Government of Canada forcing the phone companies to keep a record of every call that you make or receive, and insisting that Canada Post keep a register of every piece of mail that you send or receive. They'd still need a warrant to actually open your mail, but they don't need anyone's permission to build a profile of who you correspond with including who, how often, at what time of day etc...
The minister has gone on record to say that if you don't want the government to have a complete list of the letters you send through the mail, then you support child pornography. There is apparently no middle ground.
Now take the phone/mail analogy and replace it with everything that you do online - all the websites you visit, Facebook posts you make and emails you send. If you think that's a reasonable limit on your freedom then you should support the bill. If you don't want the government poking around your history file then you should let them know.
When you have nothing left to burn you must set yourself on fire
If he protests, its proof that he's a child pornographer.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
It's sad how politicians are so willing to embrace something foul they understand in order to combat something beautiful they don't. They all seem willing to place the Internet in a permanent state of McCarthyism, rather than admit that they do not understand it. It's the same fallacy again and again, those who value their privacy must have something to hide, it only benefits those that do not attach themselves to the Internet in any meaningful way.
Don't try to rationalize it. Call it out for what it is: a money grab. It's all about money.
They want you to keep focused on their justification (child safety) and their method (oppression of innocents). That's how they win: by keeping you focused on their carefully-prepared "syllabus". So forget all that. Instead, follow the money, and bring it to the forefront. The money is what this is all about, same as any expansion of government.
Power is merely a stepping stone to riches.
In the UK this only applies to things said within the house of commons. I have seen people challenge MPs to repeat such allegations on programmes like Question Time & Newsnight - basically "I fucking totally dare you". The usual response is "no comment" or similar obfuscation.
Does Canada's work the same way? Perhaps someone should ask Vic Toews to step outside.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I would argue it's better to expose a few children to sex way before they're ready for it, than it is to expose all of them to an invasive government that scrutinizes their every action "for the greater good".
Eh, I was once told by Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter that I was advocating for terrorists breaking military encryption because I was against the DMCA. I was trying to explain to a Town Hall meeting how the DMCA made it illegal for purchasers to exercise the right of fair use to copy a DVD because the content industry had merely put on an invisible wrapper of encryptionbasically they paid for a Bill to fleece us in the digital age. Specter went on a rant that I was talking about wanting to allow terrorists to be able to circumvent military encryption. I tried to correct him, but he was too dumb stupid to correct. (I'd give him the benefit of the doubt that he was really being hyper-intelligent and deftly torpedoing my argument, if his rant wasn't so completely devoid of factual basis and comprised mostly of ignorant run-ons--so I can't even do that.)
Priceless was the 80-something year old lady who approached me in the parking lot while I was sitting in my car waiting to exit. I thought she was going to hit me over the head with her purse, you know, for having the gall to speak so bluntly with a Senator/Elder Statesman. Instead she said that she had no idea what I was talking about, but that was clear the Senator didn't know anything either, and that he should have instead listened to me. She was angry with him for having voted for something he clearly didn't understand. So, even if I didn't get Specter to "get it", at least one of his voters did!
Scott
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
I do actually want a reworked internets that requires a unique honest 'token' for all users; not to surveil them, but to help services believe you are a real person and have something to do to the authorities with if you commit a crime using their service. The police know where your house is (or can find it easily enough) and yet, this doesn't mean they're looking in your windows all day every day watching everything you do. I want all sites, services, providers, and users of the internet to be ACCOUNTABLE and demonstrably not a bot or a virus or what have you. My job writing code trying to safeguard my organization's site against these contingencies would be a lot easier if not for 'privacy,' spoofed IPs, etc. /rant
Being an upstanding citizen and a person to lead by example, I look forward to Vic Toews releasing his web browsing history to the public.
“He can either stand with us, or with the child pornographers.” Canadian Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, February 13, 2012
"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." US President George W. Bush, September 20, 2001
As a Canadian living in the US, it is very sad to see Canada adopting the US model for copyright, censorship, and civilian spying.
I ask all Canadians to demand an inquest into Mr. Toews copyright infringement of the American President, and demand a full retraction of his statement for failing to acknowledge its original source.
A false dichotomy if ever there was one, from a two faced-politician.
I sent a letter in protest to my MP and got a similar canned response. it appears to be an answer from any conservatives in government. Here was my reply from Pierre Poilievre, my local MP.
-------------
Thank you for your message.
As you point out, these Bills did not pass in an earlier session of Parliament, and will need to be re-introduced. As such, I cannot comment on them until that time and the text is available.
That being said, our message is clear: if people use technology to commit crimes, such as distributing child pornography, the police will apprehend them and they will be punished to the full extent of the law.
Sincerely,
Pierre Poilievre, M.P. Nepean-Carleton
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities
LP
-------------
As I understand it, you have defamation laws down there as well.
We have "freedom of expression" here in Canada, which is kinda sorta the same thing (watered down a bit with some not too unreasonable provisions). You can still get in trouble for saying stuff that is wrong, that you havn't made reasonable attempts to verify, and is harmful.
We let politicians get away with it in parliment so they can talk freely without worrying about a civil suit every time they open their mouth.
I stand with child pornographers. When they came for the communists, I didn't speak out because I was not a communist. When they came for the trade unionists, I didn't speak out because I was not a trade unionist. When they came for the drug users, I didn't speak out because I wasn't a drug user. When they came for the terrorists, I didn't speak out because I wasn't a terrorist. When they came for the child pornographers, I didn't speak out because I wasn't a child pornographer. When they came for me, there was nobody left to speak out for me.
So yes, at some point we should all be speaking out, even if we don't belong with the group targeted at that point.
Learn to love Alaska
People don't understand or care about the implications of the surveillance. The only way to make them care is to raise awareness using an image that people know and understand.
That image is "Big Brother" from 1984. That's the message that has to be put across by the anti-surveillance campaigners. Move the argument from a rational one to an emotional one. The other side has already done this, the solution is to raise the stakes.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
TFA is trolling. Mod Toews down!
how they define CP is so broad now a days that a Father video taping his own daughter Ballet dancing could be considered CP
I would think that unless it includes
1 full nudity
2 Intercourse (or related activities)
3 some other crime
4 is otherwise devoid of artistic/diagnostic merit
it should not be legally considered CP
and i would rather see a thousand "modeling" sites than have anything on the books that can be used to censor/track EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Reasonable thought out arguments don't get as much airtime, those that do are generally not "simple" enough for the general populace to grasp, so it's easier to say "if you aren't this then you're this" and in the US our media excels at this type of reporting, dumb down and free of depth or rational thought.
A sample of headlines:
"POLL: Catholics turn on Obama..."
"MURDOCH HIT BY FEUD OVER SUN"
"Obama justice continues investigation...Witch hunt"
"OUTLAW COUNTRY: Naked Texas cowgirl, 18, arrested after police chase..."
*sigh*
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
only a sith deals in absolutes
Soon after this article, a few articles such as this showed up. And these describe perfectly the "for the children" pro-censorship mentality that I was talking about (anyone who disagrees must be a pedophile).
But this is for the children, so I must be a pedophile for disagreeing with him.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
You do that. I'll not stand with either.
/* No Comment */
Be nice. I think he's mentally ill.
And that protection only applies to statements made within the houses of parliament. As a practical matter is generally applied to politicians outside the buildings as as well, but legally they are only protected for statements made within the house.
It actually makes a fair bit of sense, Parliamentary sessions are matters of public record, but can have a lot of bitter personal squabbling in them, things you would say in private that couldn't be seriously considered slanderous (essentially treating someone accused of a crime as having committed said crime for example, especially in cases of bribery of other politicians) are given the protections of being private discourse while still showing off how the commons behave to the public that voted for them. It also means that in their capacity as MP they can accuse for example, Tony Blair, of being a war criminal who should be deported to the hague for trial, even when he is prime minister.
It also exempts them from state secrets acts in performance of their duties. Essentially if they know a state secret and disclose it as part of their job as an MP that is legal, even if they were not explicitly authorized to do so. A good example of the use of something like this would be Winston Churchill openly discussing classified british intelligence on german re-armament in the lead up to WW2. Another example is the revelation of classified programmes that have dodged some other parliamentary procedure (like budget oversight).
It seems that our Exporting of Complete Stupidity has worked! Glad to see your Canadians are using the supply of completely corrupt and stupid people we have been offering. Nice to see you guys using them in Government Positions like we have down here!
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
The last days of the human race.
No child has been born for 18 years.
Which is a good thing, because we can finally enjoy our internet freedom in peace.
What part of what he said could be considered slander, regardless of privilege? "You're either with the government or the child pornographers" is clearly an opinion, and an opinion can not be a 'false statement'. It can be ill-thought out, illogical, or just plain stupid, but it can't be a false statement.
I am not a great fan of crypto nerds because I know just how idiotic the idea of a darknet is in a dictatorship. A darknet lights up light a christmas tree at your ISP if they can be bothered and in places in the world, they can be bothered. So what if it is encrypted? That never stopped the goons.
So... what do we need a free internet for? To AVOID getting that far. It would be nice if humanity always veered towards doing what was right for the greater good, if all journalists always could be counted on to ask the hard questions. That politicians don't look away because they think it helps their cause in the long term.
A free internet is a new tool to share information outside the main stream, it is as revolutionary as the printing press and the post office (For women's lib, the post office suddenly allowed them to communicate with anyone without needing permission) before. But the printing press was used to reproduce child porn and the post office was used to distribute it. Not so long ago (70's) child porn (and I am not talking David Hamilton style stuff) was produced fairly openly and sold. But this was done through tech that allowed Martin Luther to take the bible out of the church and into the domain of the common people AND to spread his anti-semitism that would on day lead to the holocaust.
Tech isn't good or bad but banning tech because there are not so nice uses for it, that is silly and dangerous. Silly because you can't put the cat back in the bag. People have tried it. The printing press, mechanical harvesters, cars. They all been attacked and are now a part of our lives. The internet allows anyone to communicate with anyone else at a near neg-liable cost. But this also means spammers and scammers can reach an audience in the past even Hollywood could not dream off. 911 from Nigeria might have negative overtones but it also means that people from what is not one of the most developed nations in the world can deal as equals with those developed nations. Ever tried calling Africa on the phone? Sent a wire? A letter? Sure, a percentage uses that connection for scams but how much information is being shared for the good of both sides as well?
And you can't have one without the other. Either you allow everyone to communicate or you don't. The makers of Freenet faced this, the simple fact is that the only real use for Freenet in the west at the moment is to share files that you can't share anywhere else and for a LOOOOOOONG time, that only was child porn. If you ever use Tor you can see just what it contains, hate (nazi wannabe's), a tiny bit of drugs for those who think the police has nothing better to do and under aged porn.
You can say you want to get rid of that part of Freenet but you can't. Either you have free communication or your don't. Child porn is even nastier then terrorism, I can say I am willing to take the risk of being blown up but I can't accept that risk on behalf of someone elses child.
Child porn is real and it is big, torrents are pretty clean and usenet can be realtively easy administred but as said, Tor and Freenet are full of it and so are other P2P programs. You can combat it easily, just restrict all traffic to non-encrypted, known content that is filtered and block any unknown traffic. Hiding data in data? Can't be done if the data is known, just make the Internet the Internet Microsoft and Apple dream off, all content pre-approved.
Do you think that is impossible? HA! IT IS ALREADY HERE. The movies you watch, the TV you watch, the music you listen to, the articles you read. ALL have been screened to make sure it is "safe" for you to consume. Hell, we don't even need the state for it, we do it ourselves right here on Slashdot all the time.
That is how tempting it is. If you are for a free internet, browse slashdot at -11.
It is tempting to want to get rid of child porn and you can do it, you just have to sacrifice everyones freedom and make it just a bit easier for a wannabe dictator to one day get away with it. But how do you def
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Fortunately, Mr. Toews gave a lot of wiggle room on this. For instance, I can state unequivocally that I stand with this convicted child molester: http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2007/10/28/georgia-supreme-court-releases-wilson.htm.
While there is wide opposition to the bill in Canada, including every province's privacy commissioner, the federal government's privacy commissioner, and many people across party lines, with a majority in parliament the conservatives will ram this law through faster than Justice Minister Vic Toews (pronounced taze... like tazer) ramming a mistress. They have a track record of cutting off debate they don't like. Meanwhile, the government currently has the ability to get access to this information, as long as they first obtain a warrant from a judge.
This is the government that shut down the federal gun registry and eliminated the long form census based on privacy concerns. The hypocrisy is not surprising considering it is well known the publicly 'devout' Christian justice minister (and unofficial "Minister of Family Values") introducing the bill is divorced as a result of keeping a decades younger mistress with whom he fathered a child and at least one documented case of conflict of interest. Needless to say, the various privacy commissioners and opposition Members of Parliament are not amused at being classified as pedophiles (since they are against the government on this one), and several have stated this: ' "Apparently, if you care about civil liberties in this country you obviously side with child pornographers, murderers," she (Green party Leader Elizabeth May) said.'
So non-Canadians understand, in the Canadian system of government, the leader of a party has final say on who can run for the party in each riding (district in American vernacular). And he/she has the ability to kick elected members out of the party. If you aren't in a party the rules allow you almost no right to speak in the house in order to give your opinion, or ask questions of the government in question period. In other words, you have little ability to represent your riding. You must vote as you are told or be ostracized. And any party member who works with you will face the same penalty. This means that since the conservatives have a majority in the house and the senate, this law will be passed regardless on how Canadians feel about it. Personally I think the Canadian system is flawed and only avoided these kinds of issues by luck in the past. Now that parties are exploiting these democratic inadequacies, the whole thing is going downhill fast.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
You have to take the full thing into accounts; multiple people said they were against the bill, thus, they are siding and protecting child pornographers. Tagging someone by reference like this has been ruled quite often against it. A radio station here lost using that rhetoric and had to change radically afterward ...
If you're not with us, you're against us.
Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
I noticed over the years that in a number of cases in the US, the politicians
who were most publicly anti-gay, turned out to be gay themselves, but
because of other beliefs, felt so guilty about it they figured they could
deal with their own contradictions by pushing an anti-gay agenda in the
government. Each time the truth came out it was a mind blower.
Say Mr. Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, is there anything bothering your conscience? Can we have a complete browsing history on you since the Internet began? I hope you get a clean bill on all your browsing habits, so we can at least consider your outrageous comments on their merits.
I dont drink medication, hence i am fine. The same logic says that you are mentally ill.
that goes, " People will tolerate any loss of liberty as long as it is put as 'Good for the children.' "
Bill C-11...
Bill C-30...
TPP...
What the hell happened?
I want my Canada back!
They're attempting to pass wiretapping legislation. I believe everything you've said on the internet can be monitored under the Patriot Act or something, can't it? And if not you can be sure they're listening anyway. At least our assholes ask first!
I don't know how freedom of speech works in Canada. If it has inherited any of the characteristics of British law, parliamentary privilege puts people like Toews in an interesting position. He can make whatever spurious claims he wants or launch ad hominem attacks against his opposition. But private citizens have to speak carefully or risk lawsuits.
At least in the USA, we can respond by pointing out that politicians in favor of online surveillance must be for Nazism. Fling mud and you get a facefull right back.
Have gnu, will travel.
They might as well just arrest everyone that opposes the bill as they obviously are in the child porn business themselves.
Did I say arrest? I meant, burnt at the cross! Made an example of!
Are you saying Republicans are really reptiles?
Ignore this signature. By order.
That's retardist.
Two teachers at Miramonte Elementary School here in Los Angeles were arrested on molestation/lewd acts charges. They closed the school for a couple days and when it re-opened they replaced every single teacher (temporarily).
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
We (US citizens) cannot say anything we want either. The difference only being in legal frameworks under which our speech is suppressed. In Canada and Europe generally the act of suppression is more direct and civil. In the US it tends to be indirect and often violent. "Freedom of assembly? You bet, but first you need a permit and no of course you cannot assemble there, we will tell you where.", "Freedom of the press? Sure, but tell us your sources or you'll be facing jail time. Wait. You're a blogger? You have no press credentials. Now hold still while we mace you. What? You're not holding still? Better tase you then..."
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
I'll stand with both of them, easier to stab that way.
There was a poem written for people like you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6
I doubt you have to go that far.
That can be defined so broadly, that it would definitely suppress a lot of speech.
I'm glad I can't be arrested, fined or thrown in jail just for saying I think ____ all suck, or I hate ____s...
It might not be politically correct, but you shouldn't run afoul the law for your opinions no matter what they are....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Vic Toews said "You either stand with us or with the child pornographers. "
If you ask me to choose between politicians or child pornographers you might not like my answer.
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
That is utter nonsense. There are no "inherent human rights." The only way you get "rights" is (a) someone has to define them, either specifically or in general, (b) someone has to have the power to defend them, (c) and then they actually have to be defended.
As long as people confuse the real situation with this "inherent" meme, they'll fail at actually solving the problem. For instance, in the USA, (c) above is where we fail. We've defined them specifically (those mentioned in the bill of rights and a few others), we've defined them generally (the 9th amendment), the government certainly has the power to defend them... but it rarely does -- in fact, it is much more likely to be the very party abusing them. This happens specifically because rights are not inherent -- they are simply grants supported by power. When power is focused on other issues, rights often mean nothing at all, other than you're proceeding under a set of incorrect assumptions.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
There so right, child porn is the only bad thing on the internet, hence why if you don't support online surveillance you must support child porn, there is nothing else that is inappropriate on the net.
Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, refering to The "Act to enact the Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act and to amend the Criminal Code and other acts" Said: "He can either stand with us or with the child pornographers," "Lawful access will aid child porn investigations. I call on the NDP to stop making things easier for predators and support these measures." Adolf Hitler himself, referring to such tactics, wrote: “The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation. ” -Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler, Publ. Houghton Miflin, 1943, Page 403 Mr. Toews, I see you have learned your lessons well.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
But nowhere near smart or shrewd enough to be elected to anything since the 1990s. Never mind the fact he has a snowball's chance in hell at the presidency this time around...
"But this one goes to 11!"
Yes, if they change the legislation from all citizens to identified Catholic priests I'm willing to stand behind it.
"If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
I've seen no convincing evidence that Vic Toews is stupid, myself. Perhaps you have?
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
There has got to be a way to get the conservatives out of power. I wish I knew how.
You didn't seriously just try to say that if images of kids are devoid of artistic merit (meaning, in someone's opinion... eye of the beholder and all that), then those images are child porn, did you?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
you were either with the child pornographers or with the government
Only a Sith deals in absolutes. I will do what I must.
Fear is the mind killer.
Same old tactics - your security is at risk and here is a solution. People don't think rationally when confronted with fear.
HEY NOW! There is absolutely no need to engage in the slander of reptiles here!
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
And private schools. And don't forget churches. If you're in favour of sending your kids to church, you clearly support the pedophile priests. You're either anti-church, or pro-pedophile. If it seems unfair to punish the entire concept of religion for the actions of a few child rapists, but that's only because you support child rapists, obviously.
And of course, more children are abused by their parents/family than by non-family-members, so children should be raised by non-family-members. It's only logical. Anyone who objects is obviously an child abuser or a sympathiser.
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
And a couple of years later, when the morons in congress enact yet another ex post facto law (for the children, of course), you're a pedophile again. Welcome to reality.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
.... politicians......
kiddies welcome.
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
It is so refreshing to see that our US Imperialism has finally overcome the Canadian notion of independence. Sign this bill and the transformation will be complete. Join us in the new American hegemony! Soon we will conquer the remaining people to the south and our hold over this hemisphere will be final! Join us, O brethren from the great white north! Let us build the future together!!!
That is all.
I don't understand how people like this Minister think they are helping their case. I mean, in their heads, how does the logic work?
Power-grabber: I want to grab power.
Opponent: I don't trust you with that much power.
Power-grabber: That's because you are an Enemy. Only Enemies want to keep their rights.
Opponent: Oh, okay, now I totally trust you with that much power.
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
This law for one. Rattling on about morality when he can't keep it in his pants for another.
Politician could get an RCMP officer removed, but they can't get me fired from my job.
*I* want access to all political figureheads that are within public grasp to allow citizens to access their email and network activities at any time without a warrant
to ensure they're not corrupt and looking at child porn themselves. We could have exceptionally disgusting low political heads, and I'm sure we do.
What?! you're not okay with that? I will honestly only use it for watching for cporn and have you arrested. That's it, I promise no political agenda of any kind will come of this! No really, I won't watch for things you're doing that I don't like that aren't related to illegal activities so I can oppose your plans with perfect timing.
GTFO. Get a warrant. Warrants for that reason should be instant anyway.
I can't see a judge going 'You want a warrant for suspected child abuse? Let me think about it'
I want EVERYTHING cops do documented and approved. They have shown TIME and TIME again that they CANNOT be left up to their own devices. They have abused it, not all of them, but individual RCMP members. We cannot give the same people who may abuse it more power such as this. Next they check emails on ex's or spy on their kids, or harass the guy who flipped off the cop when passing by in a situation where the cop was a dick but couldn't issue a ticket.
No thanks.
If anything - make it speedier for police to have access to warrants in relation to such content with judges.
and your claims to the contrary annoy those of us that do.
I'd rather have none of it be illegal.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Let's just all give up our privacy so that your job is a little easier.
Quickly becoming a far naughtier version if the aristocrats for the cognitively impaired.
the leaders in false dichotomies.
"Politician uses inflammatory rhetoric to vilify policy opposition!"
Film at 11
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
That can be defined so broadly, that it would definitely suppress a lot of speech.
In principle, yes (although it's defined in a little more detail in the actual criminal code..).. in practice, I've never heard of hate speech laws being used to surpress anything outside of Westboro Church type stuff.
It might not be politically correct, but you shouldn't run afoul the law for your opinions no matter what they are....
In principle I agree with this.. I recognize that to have the ability to say anything I want to say no matter how unpopular it is, others have to have the same. In practice, as I said, I've never seen the laws we have abused, and seeing some of the shit that goes on down in the US (again.. Westboro Church) .. I can live with the compromise.
Actually, you (probably, I'm not your lawyer, disclaimer, etc) can't be arrested, fined, or thrown in jail for making those kinds of statements. Now, if you incite someone else to hatred, that's hate speech, and a little easier to pin down in court.
Canadian rights law is all about balancing between opposing rights. So for example hate speech is a balancing act between your right to say what you want and someone else's right not to have lynch mobs form up and hunt him or her down. Also, in Canada different kinds of expression have different values. The Supreme Court hasn't exactly been clear on this issue, but it's generally understood that some kinds of expression are better or more worthy than others, and that political expression for example is much more valuable to society than, say, pornography, and therefore deserving of much more protection and deference from the courts.
It seems odd to an American, who's used to interpreting their Constitution in a binary fashion, but for the most part it works reasonably well, and is a good way to help the courts avoid the odd boundary condition cases in which a strict interpretation produces an unfair or absurd result.
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
Those 2 quotes, along with pictures of Toewes and Hitler side by side should be emailed to every politician in Canada. This Conservative government has been trying its best to curtail all of our rights to privacy at every turn. Thankfully the system has mostly worked to prevent this so far, but then they had a minority government, now they have the majority. I think Harper honestly wants a police state, not an overt one, a subtle one that gives his party complete access to everything they need to remain in power. :(
I would sound like more of a loon for saying that, were it not for the evidence of the various legislative attempts they have made in the past few years to remove our rights, the police state tactics utilized in the G8/G20 conference, and the attitudes of the conservatives themselves.
Time to start referring to the "Harper Regime" I suspect
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
You know, I think you might be on to something there....
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
We need more surveillance. I don't think our precious children will be safe until every little child has at least 5 cameras in their bedroom watching them at all times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbins_v._Lower_Merion_School_District
oh wait, reality called: "more security" is not same thing as "more secure". Your crotch-fruit is not a pretext to trample my privacy rights.
... some (I guess less than 10) sporadicaly contained child porn. It saved them several terrabytes of traffic per day. This move started golden age for all kinds of paid internet porn sites. And most of porn is made by Hollywood.
Freedom of speech DOES NOT include slander and libel and all kinds of other speech
So what are these "other speech" that should not be protected? It's called 'freedom of speech' not 'freedom of some speech that is not otherwise forbidden'. Just because all governments want to tell us what to say (and hypocratically give themselves the privilege of not falling under those rules), doesn't mean that we should accept oppression as normal.
Toews is pushing this through so he can give the Canadian Gov't more control over the citizens. It's just another police state move, in the name of child pornography prevention - which is doing just fine by the way.
I dunno...I'd heard ya'll can get arrested for so called Hate Speech.....
That can be defined so broadly, that it would definitely suppress a lot of speech.
I'm glad I can't be arrested, fined or thrown in jail just for saying I think ____ all suck, or I hate ____s...
It might not be politically correct, but you shouldn't run afoul the law for your opinions no matter what they are....
While true, we also have a backlog in our court system such that a contested hate speech case is likely to get dropped off the docket unless it actually has some merit pertaining to actual activity harmful to the public. Still not nice to be accused of hate speech, but the only people who would be convicted would likely run afoul of some other law in the US and get even worse punishment.
We let politicians get away with it in parliment so they can talk freely without worrying about a civil suit every time they open their mouth.
...and they'd have to...
I'd much rather stand with a child pornagrapher than a tyrant.
Don't fall into the trap of limiting your choices to the ones the tyrant gave you.
...that they somehow reserved the right to secede
I would love to see how how that worked out for them. If they want to succeed, I say we should just let them. Within a decade, I suspect that they would be asking for re-admission to the union.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
That kind of divisive language is a typical bullying tactic that these repressive cuntservative types use. They try to paint everyone into a corner.
Drawing lines in the sand, and "You're either with us or against us!" like those bible thumping American politicians do.
We need to get rid of "The Harper Government of Canada" (Ominous in itself that they expect everyone to call them that). Canadians made a big mistake in the last election.
What other crime would give them an excuse to invade people's privacy to the extent the CP has? Terrorism or drugs may come close, but nothing allows them to shit on the constitution as much as CP does. I think it's a bit disingenuous for the group that is benefiting the most from the existence of CP to accuse others of being "for" it.
Trust me, it's based in reality.
We might have some crazy right-wing politicians in Alberta compared to the rest of Canada but, as a European who moved to Alberta from the US, they are not a patch on the crazy, right wing US politicians. For example they all support (admittedly in some cases grudgingly) free health care at a level that puts them somewhere slightly to the left of the US democrats.
Actually, I think I can freely incite someone else to hate....hate is an emotional feeling, and I don't see them outlawing that.
However, if I incite people to a riot, or violence (physical acts), then, well, we already have laws against that.
I just don't want to see any kind of speech....no matter how vile the idea it expresses, to be banned or made unlawful. Too easy to get someone in power to change what is 'offensive' to them.
One of the basic tenets of Free Speech is, that by definition, if you have Free Speech, you cannot have Freedom from being Offended.
If you grant freedom from offense...then the world will be getting quite a bit quieter very quickly.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
That can be defined so broadly, that it would definitely suppress a lot of speech.
In principle, yes (although it's defined in a little more detail in the actual criminal code..).. in practice, I've never heard of hate speech laws being used to surpress anything outside of Westboro Church type stuff.
I believe "hate speech/hate crime" is more commonly used to increase penalities when a crime is committed. IE, something extra that is considered when something else is prosecuted.
What else is there to say? He and Harper are being in the Big Brother Fascist State. It's time to say NO to their kind of evil State Totalitarianism.
The data that all provides must collect will be available through online means at all time. IE police will be able to browse it easily.
If a predator can get to that information they will have a gold mine. A record of all activity done by a childs phone or computer.
So they are not making kids safer they are opening one giant hole.
The problem is that free speech doesn't exist in a vacuum. All too often, the assertion of one person's rights leads to the abrogation of someone else's rights, and the courts need to decide which right prevails over the other. In Canada at least (and I believe this is true of the US Constitution as well), the rights aren't listed in order of priority. It's nice to make grandiose statements about the "basic tenets of Free Speech", but that right, like all rights, has a limit, and sooner or later some judge somewhere has to decide what that limit is. Invariably, that limit turns out to be pressing hard up against the limit of some other right or rights.
Let me give you an example. In Canadian law, political expression is among the most valued and valuable forms of expression, and the courts will go to great lengths to protect it. Political speech is protected in public spaces, both those spaces that are actually owned by the public, and those spaces owned privately but generally open to members of the public to attend. If you set up your soapbox in front of the courthouse and start giving a political speech, you shouldn't be disturbed by the government (and if you are, the courts will dismiss the charges against you). But, if you go to a courtroom, and start making your great speech about the evils of the government of the day, and expound upon your ideal political system, you'll be marched out of the courtroom in a hurry, and most likely in handcuffs. When you appear before the judge on public mischief charges, you'll be found guilty. Your speech in the courtroom has infringed on the rights of others to the due process of law, and in the courtroom, that right is paramount.
The same thing applies to other rights, including the freedom of (or from) religion. The hate speech laws are targeted at kinds of speech that make it harder for people to feel safe practicing their religion. It's not just about being offended, the laws target the kind of speech that makes people worry about being assaulted because of their faith (or race, ethnicity, gender, etc). Because in certain contexts and with certain kinds of speech (but not always) your freedom of or from religion trumps the nazi's or fundamentalist Christian's or fanatical Muslim's freedom of speech. This is not always decided in favour of freedom of religion, either. Believers of all kinds have to put up with a lot of things they find offensive, both from the government and from private citizens, because their freedom of religion does not take precedence over the rights of whoever is doing the offending.
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
You think...BEEEEEP....
Talk about a leap to a conclusion! Yikes! I hate politicians of all types and breeds. They are basically life forms lower than algae.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes!
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
I could not care less about child pornography or terrorism. I am opposed to both, but so what I bet it's hard to find people publicly claiming to suppoprt either. Both are sufficiently rare that NO significant incinvenience, LET ALONE INFRINGEMENT OF LIBERTY, is justified in either case.
Vic Toews thinks other people are interested in child pornography, but that sounds like something a child pornographer would say. Some say that Toews is a modern-day Lewis Carroll, secretly bugging restrooms in schools for awful footage. I think someone even accused him of just this sort of thing, but he has never come out and denied it. Why won't Vic Toews come forward and deny these awful rumors? It really makes you think that there's something going on there. I believe he is doing something awful to Canadian children.
Please look up Ad Hominum Also...please look past it in this instance.
I used to work with a Texan a million years ago. Didn't matter what the topic of discussion was; 'In Texas...' was his constant contribution. Until one day, a fellow co-worker turned on him: "If things are so goddamn great in Texas, why are you here?"
So don't let your abhorrence, righteous indignation and knee jerk reactions to media code words close your eyes to what is really going on and what is really being said.
Heh.... I think you miss my point. Perhaps I didn't make it well enough.
By saying you're standing with child pornographers on this point, you are validating the MP's claim that this issue has anything at all to do with child pornographers. It doesn't.
But, I see what you're saying. I guess using the media code words to provoke knee-jerk reactions among the less technically literate public is one strategy you can use to fight this battle. I just don't think it will be a very effective strategy. When people see the technorati supporting child pornographers, I think their first reaction will be to agree with the MP, and they probably won't have a second.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Politics is the only profession where you can make money by cheating people (poll promises) and yet you'll not be prosecuted/punished.
Go and start your own political party.
Casteism
Yeah, but I'm sure that I'm not exactly in the minority with the non-pedophile AND non-tyrant camp.
/* No Comment */